GSIS EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION AND PEDRO OLASE, PETITIONERS, VS. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM AND COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, RESPONDENTS..

This is a petition for certiorari
with mandamus to review the order of the Court of Industrial Relations dated 16
November 1960 (Annex III) and its resolution en banc dated 8 December 1960
(Annex VI) denying the motion for execution of Judgment filed by Pedro Olase in CIR Case No. 896-V (2) dated 3 October 1960 (Annex
I).

On 7 January
1960, a
judgment was rendered by the Court of Industrial Eelations,
the dispositive part of which reads—

In view of all the foregoing, this
Court finds no substantial evidence to support respondent’s accusation that Olase committed the swindle and that the investigation and
administrative proceedings conducted by respondent’s officials fall short of
the due process as provided for under Executive Order No. 370. The Court, there
fore, orders the respondent Government Service Insurance System, its general
manager and agents, jointly and severally, to reinstate Tedro
Olase to his former position. With respect to the
petitioner-movant’s claim for back wages, it is
believed that the same cannot be granted in view of the fact that the dismissal
was not motivated by malice but done in good faith. Although there might have
been a bad judgment on the part of respondent in dismissing petitioner-movant, yet this judgment was based on its honest belief
that petitioner-movant committed the act. The court
also orders respondent, its general manager and agents, to post a copy of this
order in two conspicuous places in the premises of respondent within a period
of thirty (30) days and thereafter shall inform this Court from time to time
compliance with the same. (CIR Case No. 986-V(2).

Both parties filed motions for
reconsideration. Olase asked that the judgment be
modified so as to include payment of back wages. On the other hand, the
respondent GSIS prayed for the reversal of the judgment as to reinstatement of
Pedro Olase to his former position. On 18
February 1960,
the Court en bane denied the motions for reconsideration. [Both parties have
appealed. On 27 July 1960, after the ten-day period had elapsed from the
receipt of the order denying the motion for reconsideration, Pedro Olase reported for work to the respondent GSIS but the
latter refused to accept him; and so on 3 October 1960, Olase
filed a motion for execution of the judgment rendered on 7 January 1960,
contending that pursuant to Sec. 14, C.A. 103, as amended, appeal by certiorari
does not stay the execution of the award but becomes self-executory
ten (10) days after the defeated party has been notified of the resolution of
the Court en bane, and praying that a writ of execution issue against the
respondent GSIS directing it to reinstate him to his former position, to pay
him the sum of P497.10, corresponding to his salary from 27 July 1960 to 30
September 1960, inclusive, and his monthly salary thereafter (Annex I). In its
opposition dated 4 October 1960 (Annex II), the respondent GSIS
alleged that because both parties have appealed from the judgment sought to be
executed (G. R. Nos. L-17186 and L-17363), the reinstatement of Olase ordered by the judgment should be stayed until after
this Court shall have passed upon the appeals taken by both parties. It invoked
the rule in the case of Cebu Portland Co., vs.
Varela, et al., 93 Phil., 878, where this Court upheld the suspension of the
order for reinstatement made by the trial court until after this Court shall
have decided the case on appeal. The respondent GSIS objected to Olase’s reinstatement because of loss of confidence, and
further averred that “to reinstate him now, when the case is still pending
would not be conducive to the efficiency of the service as the other employees’
morale would be affected” and that the properties of respondent which are
being held in trust for all government employees would be exposed to loss. On
16 November 1960, the Court of Industrial Relations stayed execution of
judgment directing the reinstatement of Olase for the
reason that there exists special and valid grounds for such a stay, but
required the respondent GSIS to put up a bond in the sum of P1,000.00 to guarantee whatever lawful claim Olase might have against it should the Supreme Court decide
the case in his favor, the judgment being for his reinstatement only without
back wages (Annex III). On 22 November 1960, Olase
moved for reconsideration of the order of 16 November 1960 claiming that the Court erred in
holding that execution of judgment rendered by the Court of Industrial
Relations may be stayed for special reasons upon the filing of a bond (Annex
IV). On 6 December 1960, the respondent filed its opposition (Annex V) to the
motion for reconsideration, contending that the order in question is just and
well-founded, it being in accordance with Jaw and the evidence, and in support
of its contention it cites Section 14 of C.A. No. 103, as amended, which
empowers the Court to stay the execution of an award, order, or decision for
special reasons, and upon appellant’s depositing in court either the amount of
wages due the employees or upon its filing a bond in such form and for such
amount that would ensure compliance with the decision or award. It also alleged
that Olase being a party to a swindling of an aged
retiree, Julian Caguite, of part of his retirement
gratuity, Olase’s reinstatement would work to its
detriment. On 8 December 1960, after considering their pleadings
and arguments, the Court en banc denied the motion for reconsideration (Annex
VI). On 23 May 1961, the movant
appealed from the order denying his motion for execution (Annex VII). The
petition for review with Mandamus was filed in this Court on 26
May 1961
(G. R. No. L-18561). By resolution of this Court dated
5 July 1961, petitioners were allowed to
litigate ill this Court as paupers.

On 21 July
1961, the
respondent GSIS filed its answer. On 2 August 1961, the respondent Court of
Industrial Relations moved that it be allowed to adopt
the answer of respondent GSIS as its (respondent Court) own answer and a copy
of said motion was received toy the counsel for petitioners on 3
August 1961.
On 5 August 1931, petitioner Olase filed a
pleading praying that, as both respondents had already filed their answer, he
be allowed to adopt the arguments advanced in his petition for review with mandamus
as his brief. In its resolution of 5 September 1961, this Court set the hearing of
this case on 2 October 1961 at 9:30 in the morning.

Section 14 of C.A. 103, invoked by
both parties to support their respective contentions provides—

“* * * The institution of
such an appeal shall not, however, stay the execution of the award, order, or
decision sought to be reviewed, unless for special reasons the Court shall
order that the execution be stayed, in which event the Court in its discretion,
may require the appellant to deposit with the clerk of court such amount *
*”

On 31 October 1961, this Court
affirmed the judgment of the Court of Industrial Relations in Case No. 896-V
(2) ordering the reinstatement of Pedro Olase (G. R.
No. L-17186) but denying him back wages (G.R, No. L-17363), the dispositive part of which reads—

“* * * We find that the
denial of back wages is due to a conviction arrived at by the investigator,
after a full consideration of ail the facts disclosed at the investigation,
that Olase was in part responsible for a customer being mulcted of a big
portion of the value of his check. Only a technicality, ie.,
lack of opportunity on the part of Olase to refute
the charge that Caguite made the retraction because
he was paid P300, was the ground why the respondent court ordered
reinstatement, this without back wages. On our part, we find that the order
denying back “wages does not constitute abuse of discretion on the part of
the respondent Court.

Wherefore, in G.R. No. L-17186 the petition of the GSIS
is dismissed and the order appealed from is affirmed and in G. R. No. L-17363
the petition is also dismissed and the order appealed from also affirmed. Without costs.” (Pp. 5-6, decision of
G.R. Nos L-17186 & 17363).

There being no motion for reconsideration
filed, said decision became final and executory on 18
November 1961,
15 days after a copy of the decision had been served
on the respondent (Sec. 8, Rule 53 and Section 1, Rule 54, Rules of Court). On 12
December 1961,
the chief legal counsel of respondent GSIS forwarded to the Board of Trustees a
copy of the Supreme Court decision and recommended that Olase
be reinstated in the service.

On 4 January
1962, Olase filed a motion for execution of the judgment in Case
No. L-17186 against respondent GSIS—for his reinstatement and payment of
his salaries from 27 July 1960, the day he should have been
reinstated following the lapse of the 10-day period after respondent GSIS had
received the decision en banc of the Court of Industrial Relations.

On 22 January
1962, the
respondent GSIS reinstated Olase to his former
position. By its order dated 28 April 1962 (Annex A) entered on 3 May 1962, the
respondent court granted the motion for execution of the judgment against
respondent GSIS directing it to “pay back wages due movant
Pedro Olase from July 27, 1960, up to the date he was
actually reinstated at the rate of P230.00 per month, within the period of ten
(10) days from receipt” of said order. On 14 May 1962, respondent GSIS
moved for the reconsideration of the court order dated 28 April 1962 on the
ground that it is contrary to law and prayed that it be granted ten (10) days
from said date within which to submit its arguments in support of said motion
(Annex B). On 17 May 1962, petitioner Olase
moved that his petition for certiorari with mandamus be decided by this Court.
On 11 June 1962, the Court of Industrial Relations en banc
affirmed its order dated 28 April 1962 which directed the reinstatement
of Olase to his former position at the rate of
P230.00 per month and payment of his back wages from 27
July 1960
up to the date of his actual reinstatement. On 6 February
1963,
petitioner Olase filed a pleading praying that his
petition for review with mandamus be decided for the reason that the order
suspending execution dated 16 November 1960 (Annex III) was vacated for
failure of the respondent GSIS to file a bond (p. 12, Annex A to “motion
to set for decision” dated 16 May 1962). On 12 February 196S, the
respondent GSIS filed its reply to petitioner’s pleading and averred that as
this Court in its decision in G. R. Nos. L-17363 and 17186 dated 31 October
1961 between the same parties dismissed Olase’s
petition for payment of back wages on the finding “that the order denying
back wages does not constitute abuse of discretion on the part of the
respondent Court (CIR)”, it was beyond the authority of the respondent
Court to grant the execution of the above decision or order the payment of back
wages to petitioner Olase from 27 July 1960 up to and
including 22 January 1962 when he was reinstated, there being no showing of
unfair labor practice committed by the respondent GSIS. For this reason, the
respondent GSIS refused to deposit with the Court the amount involved in the
case but instead appealed by certiorari, now pending consideration by this
Court (G. R. No. L-19988).

It appearing that petitioner Pedro Olase was already reinstated to his former position on 22
January 1962 by the respondent GSIS and that the latter appealed by certiorari
(G. R. No. L-19988) from the order and resolution of the respondent Court dated
28 April and 11 June 1962, respectively, and without passing upon the legality
of the award of back wages to petitioner during the pendency
of the appeal, the petition filed in this case is dismissed, without
pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.